Quote Originally Posted by SKA View Post
First off I must admit I got too personal and insultive. Let me apologise for that. It was uncalled for and I let my emotions get too much in the way.
Let's say I'm having a not-so-enjoyable-time in my life right now.
So. Sorry about that.
All right, no big deal. Cool beans.

Quote Originally Posted by SKA View Post
I never said Iraq wasn't involved in terrorism. Where exactly did you get that?
That was just how I started out a post addressed to Wendylove a while back. I quoted it here so I wouldn't have to type out my entire argument again. But since you agree Iraq was involved in terrorism, wouldn't you say there was some degree of legitimacy in overthrowing the government?

Quote Originally Posted by SKA View Post
Also not once did I say Iraq didn't have WMD. But then again doesn't the USA have a grand arsenal of nukes? What kind of weapons would you call nukes? A nuclear warhead makes a nervegas bomb seem like an innocent toy.
Okay, you just implied that you agree Iraq was involved in terrorism. You also implied you agree that Iraq had WMD's when Hussein was in power. Those two factors existing together created a huge problem. Terrorist governments with WMD's are out of the question, especially for us when they are our enemies. Remember what I said at the bottom of the quote. The war is not about any one thing. It is about the big picture of all of those factors existing together.

Quote Originally Posted by SKA View Post
Also I have never been a fan of Hussein's regime( to make the understatement of the century ), but Universal Mind; Who helped Saddam Hussein to power in the first place? .... Everyone knows the USA did.
They were an alliance gone bad. I think giving WMD's to any third world government is insane, but I don't think what all Hussein became was completely forseeable.

Quote Originally Posted by SKA View Post
And I'm sure you'll remember the 1st Gulf War. 100ds of Iraqis fought alongside the american and UN soldiers to end Saddam's terror regime. However just as our combined troops were zero-ing in on Baghdad, they left again. Needless to say those 100ds of Iraqis fighting alongside our soldiers were brutally slain by Saddam for treason. This goes to show the "charitable intentions" with which the US invaded Iraq.
I have a charitable view of the situation in the way that I see the good that was created, but that does not mean I think my country is run by saints with hearts of gold. I think politicians are scuzz in practically all cases. However, they do what they think will make them look good so they can keep their power, at least in a democratic republic. That is what has me giving more credibility to government actions than a lot of people give. They can only get away with so much under the right kind of system.

There is a video of Dick Cheney in 1994 saying we didn't go into Baghdad in 1991 because the Bush 41 Administration knew what would happen. Cheney described perfectly what ended up happening in 2003, and he said it in 1994. Big Bush was against it, at least before 9/11. After 9/11, Little Bush decided to go through with it.

Quote Originally Posted by SKA View Post
Instead they let it serve as a warning for Saddam, hoping that after this threat he would be corrupted and sell out his oil for cheap to western oil corporations. When he refused..... well that's where the 2nd Gulfwar started.

First comes the Economical hitman that tries to corrupt leaders, if that fails they send CIA jackalls to either cause a revolution or assassinate the incorruptable leader to reinstate a corrupt leader who rules in their favor. If even that fails they send the militairy. Just listen to John Perkins.
As I have said before, I don't rule that impossible. However, what is the proof of it? What makes you so sure, especially considering the other variables involved in the decision to go to war? Like I said, the justifications are still justifications no matter what kind of corrupt money scheming might have been also involved.

With all of that said, even though you disagree with the war, do you sort of see where the pro-war side is coming from? Do you see even a trace of understandability to the view although you think it is wrong? Also, do you think anything at all good has resulted from the overthrowing of the Hussein regime and replacing it with a democracy?